PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Mayes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Mayes

183 S.E.2d 410, 124 Ga. App. 224, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 872

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1971

Docket46317, 46318

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 183 S.E.2d 410 (PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Mayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Mayes, 183 S.E.2d 410, 124 Ga. App. 224, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

These cases were brought to recover for damages arising from the illness of aplastic anemia caused by the consumption of Chloromycetin, a drug manufactured by Parke, Davis & Company. Counsel are in accord that the appellant pharmaceutical company gave proper and sufficient warning to the medical profession of the potential hazards accompanying the use of the drug Chloromycetin. They also agree: that the drug was available to no one except by the prescription of a qualified medical doctor; that the dosages allegedly causing the aplastic anemia here were prescribed by a qualified doctor; and that the prescribing doctor had read all of these warnings issued by the company and knew of the possible dangers invloved in the use of the drug. Under these circumstances, the company fulfilled its duty and no liability attached. Ordinarily, in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient. Webb v. Sandoz Chemical Works, 85 Ga. App. 405 (69 SE2d 689); Stottle *225 mire v. Cawood, (Dist. Col.) 213 FSupp. 897; Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F2d 121 (6); Oppenheimer v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 7 Ohio App. 2d 103 (219 NE2d 54); Johnston v. Upjohn Co. (Mo.) 442 S. W. 2d 93 (1).

Argued June 1, 1971 Decided July 9, 1971. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Edward E. Dorsey, Stuart E. Eizenstat, for appellant. Wall & Campbell, Alford Wall, Andrew W. Estes, for appellee.

There are no facts in this case which might effectuate an exception to the rule such as that applied in the Wyeth Laboratories Case, supra; Love v. Wolf, 226 Cal. App. 2d 378 (38 Cal. Rptr. 183); or Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal. App. 2d 602 (6 Cal. Rptr. 320). See Annot. 79 ALR2d 290.

The judgments of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment are reversed with direction to enter judgment in each case for Parke, Davis & Company, the defendant below.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, Chief Judge.

These cases were brought to recover for damages arising from the illness of aplastic anemia caused by the consumption of Chloromycetin, a drug manufactured by Parke, Davis & Company. Counsel are in accord that the appellant pharmaceutical company gave proper and sufficient warning to the medical profession of the potential hazards accompanying the use of the drug Chloromycetin. They also agree: that the drug was available to no one except by the prescription of a qualified medical doctor; that the dosages allegedly causing the aplastic anemia here were prescribed by a qualified doctor; and that the prescribing doctor had read all of these warnings issued by the company and knew of the possible dangers invloved in the use of the drug. Under these circumstances, the company fulfilled its duty and no liability attached. Ordinarily, in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient. Webb v. Sandoz Chemical Works, 85 Ga. App. 405 (69 SE2d 689); Stottle *225 mire v. Cawood, (Dist. Col.) 213 FSupp. 897; Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F2d 121 (6); Oppenheimer v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 7 Ohio App. 2d 103 (219 NE2d 54); Johnston v. Upjohn Co. (Mo.) 442 S. W. 2d 93 (1).

Argued June 1, 1971 Decided July 9, 1971. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Edward E. Dorsey, Stuart E. Eizenstat, for appellant. Wall & Campbell, Alford Wall, Andrew W. Estes, for appellee.

There are no facts in this case which might effectuate an exception to the rule such as that applied in the Wyeth Laboratories Case, supra; Love v. Wolf, 226 Cal. App. 2d 378 (38 Cal. Rptr. 183); or Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal. App. 2d 602 (6 Cal. Rptr. 320). See Annot. 79 ALR2d 290.

The judgments of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment are reversed with direction to enter judgment in each case for Parke, Davis & Company, the defendant below.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E.2d 410, 124 Ga. App. 224, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parke-davis-company-v-mayes-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack